Nope. It would have been worse for a short time, would probably still be worse in a localized area, but it would be MUCH better all over.
Again, stop saying what you don't know. You have no proof, no evidence to offer up to that other than, "Free Markets are GOOD!" The fact of the matter is, having that many people unemployed, especially at a time when the rest of the sector was not doing well either, would have been disastrous for the economy. Not to mention the domino effect it would have on suppliers to GM.
The point given is refuting what you say because unions are dragging everything down, bankruptcy for GM would have meant the union would have had to take cutbacks whereas right now they continue to drain GM, and through GM the rest of the country.
I have yet to meet a single human being who types faster and more reliably on an on-screen keyboard than with a physical one, including with Swype (which I love).
Didn't the chick who set the world record for fastest texter do it using Swype?
And while most people may not type faster or more reliably with an on-screen, that's not the question. The question is, can they do it well enough?
Europe doesn't struggle since they're part of the same Currency... Europe struggles (Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece) because some greedy bastards in Wall Street traded in the typical American dreamstock: "Get Credit even if you haven't got a dime!".
While you're right on what caused it, the fact that countries like Greece don't have control over the value of their currency is a large part of why they are still struggling. Countries like Sweden were hit harder, yet, because they kept control of their currency, they were able to drop it's value, thus making their exports more attractive.
Well, for one, more states are instituting laws which require their power utilities to get increasing % of their power from renewable resources. If you don't think that's going to decrease the reliance on coal, you're dreaming.
This is the same mindset that gave us a trillion dollar stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%. Unemployment is still higher, were trillions more in debt, and people are now out of work on average longer then during the great depression.
Because business isn't hiring, because there is no demand. They're not going to hire new workers when they can just squeeze the ones they have for more productivity.
Its a recovery when Obama is out of work.
As opposed to all the job-creation measures that the Republicans have proposed?
Had they failed, the market they were building cars to satisfy would have been filled by another company. Those companies would have had to hire extra workers to fill the demand. There might have been enough demand that an investor would have bought the vacated factories to build cars. Maybe someone like Tesla. Instead we have the corporate rulers that ran the company into the ground still at the helm.
Says who? Who's going to buy the cars? Remember, we were still ass deep in recession; NOBODY was buying cars.
Maybe 10 years from now, the demand might have kicked up, but that'd be far too late for all the people without jobs.
And yet, none of that was any refuting of the point, which is that had GM and Chrysler simply gone under, the economy would be even more fucked than it is now.
No, we'd be in full recovery by now. Constantly saving big companies like banks or GM makes all the other companies nervous because they know the Tax Hammer will have to come down eventually to pay for all this.
Except you have nothing to guarantee that. Not to mention, you make NO NOTE of all the people who would have lost their jobs. Most of them would still be unemployed.
Again, your "Free Market or Bust" rhetoric might sound nice, but you have NOTHING to back it up. There is nothing to lead anyone to believe that we'd be recovering any better than we are, and more things to indicate that we'd be worse off, with much higher unemployment.
They're doing it. They just don't have the production capacity to run two lines at once. And given the Sedan is going to have more appeal, they're going to shift focus to that.
Not to mention they're also doing the drivetrain and batteries for the Toyota RAV4 electric.
At the same time, a sedan isn't all that exciting. Sure, it's much more practical, and more people would buy them, but it's not sexy. And that's what Tesla needed to get off the ground and get investors on board, not to mention the public excited about their tech. Not to mention that the battery tech when they started was super expensive, and there's no way a sedan would have made it at that price point. So they aimed higher, and tried to show off what they could do, performance wise.
They're already working on the Sedan. It's coming. They just wanted to get people, and investors, excited first.
Considering that approximately 66% of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, electric cars are not really much of an alternative. Just because you don't burn fossil fuels directly in the car doesn't mean they are not dependent on fossil fuels.
Maybe, but two things:
1). Power plants are much more efficient at converting fossil fuels to power than a bunch of individual engines. 2). The thing with electricity is that the sources can be changed out for cleaner ones without most of the consumers noticing. So while now that number is 66%, in the years to come it is expected to drop.
Had they failed, unemployment would have skyrocketed, and we'd be in the depths of depression instead of just recession. I know it's trendy and hip to be on the "Free Markets or Bust" bandwagon these days, but maybe you should actually look at what the domino effect of your desires would actually do.
No, that before they didn't get to keep the fee even if they accepted it. All revenue generated went to the Treasury fund, and they had to make due with whatever Congress gave them, which was usually a pittance.
Well, prior to this, the Patent office was given a pittance in funding, which meant that they couldn't really hire many people, let alone those with industry knowledge, to work and evaluate patents. Hopefully this will change that.
I would like to see how this could possible hold up to the congressional power of being able "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Somehow this round of patent reform is going still another step away from this constitutional mandate, as if it didn't even exist. Then again, I would be wary of the "limited Times" provision in any new law as well as that is where most "intellectual property reform" usually tends towards infinity on that issue.
You're going to have to clarify how it runs afoul of it.
No, because you didn't invent it. Prior art doesn't go away. Just the messy problem of determining who invented something first when two groups file similar inventions.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, if it meant he'd never get his Xbox back, I'd think he'd be more willing to show up in court.
Nope. It would have been worse for a short time, would probably still be worse in a localized area, but it would be MUCH better all over.
Again, stop saying what you don't know. You have no proof, no evidence to offer up to that other than, "Free Markets are GOOD!" The fact of the matter is, having that many people unemployed, especially at a time when the rest of the sector was not doing well either, would have been disastrous for the economy. Not to mention the domino effect it would have on suppliers to GM.
The point given is refuting what you say because unions are dragging everything down, bankruptcy for GM would have meant the union would have had to take cutbacks whereas right now they continue to drain GM, and through GM the rest of the country.
[Citation Needed]
I have yet to meet a single human being who types faster and more reliably on an on-screen keyboard than with a physical one, including with Swype (which I love).
Didn't the chick who set the world record for fastest texter do it using Swype?
And while most people may not type faster or more reliably with an on-screen, that's not the question. The question is, can they do it well enough?
Netbooks can be cool. I just don't like the tiny ass keyboard.
Europe doesn't struggle since they're part of the same Currency... Europe struggles (Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece) because some greedy bastards in Wall Street traded in the typical American dreamstock: "Get Credit even if you haven't got a dime!".
While you're right on what caused it, the fact that countries like Greece don't have control over the value of their currency is a large part of why they are still struggling. Countries like Sweden were hit harder, yet, because they kept control of their currency, they were able to drop it's value, thus making their exports more attractive.
With prices about half of the cheapest 14"+ laptops they are very good choice in a poor European country
I don't think that's the market the article is referring to.
I'd say just close down those companies. If they can't play nice, they don't deserve to be in business at all.
That's a new one. Typically business has the attitude of "Environment? Is it profit? If not, then FUCK the environment."
Well, for one, more states are instituting laws which require their power utilities to get increasing % of their power from renewable resources. If you don't think that's going to decrease the reliance on coal, you're dreaming.
This is the same mindset that gave us a trillion dollar stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%. Unemployment is still higher, were trillions more in debt, and people are now out of work on average longer then during the great depression.
Because business isn't hiring, because there is no demand. They're not going to hire new workers when they can just squeeze the ones they have for more productivity.
Its a recovery when Obama is out of work.
As opposed to all the job-creation measures that the Republicans have proposed?
Had they failed, the market they were building cars to satisfy would have been filled by another company. Those companies would have had to hire extra workers to fill the demand. There might have been enough demand that an investor would have bought the vacated factories to build cars. Maybe someone like Tesla. Instead we have the corporate rulers that ran the company into the ground still at the helm.
Says who? Who's going to buy the cars? Remember, we were still ass deep in recession; NOBODY was buying cars.
Maybe 10 years from now, the demand might have kicked up, but that'd be far too late for all the people without jobs.
And yet, none of that was any refuting of the point, which is that had GM and Chrysler simply gone under, the economy would be even more fucked than it is now.
No, we'd be in full recovery by now. Constantly saving big companies like banks or GM makes all the other companies nervous because they know the Tax Hammer will have to come down eventually to pay for all this.
Except you have nothing to guarantee that. Not to mention, you make NO NOTE of all the people who would have lost their jobs. Most of them would still be unemployed.
Again, your "Free Market or Bust" rhetoric might sound nice, but you have NOTHING to back it up. There is nothing to lead anyone to believe that we'd be recovering any better than we are, and more things to indicate that we'd be worse off, with much higher unemployment.
Also, am I the only one who finds it ironic that a company named Tesla has a failed business model?
Maybe, but that's probably because you're the only one that thinks its failed.
They're doing it. They just don't have the production capacity to run two lines at once. And given the Sedan is going to have more appeal, they're going to shift focus to that.
Not to mention they're also doing the drivetrain and batteries for the Toyota RAV4 electric.
At the same time, a sedan isn't all that exciting. Sure, it's much more practical, and more people would buy them, but it's not sexy. And that's what Tesla needed to get off the ground and get investors on board, not to mention the public excited about their tech. Not to mention that the battery tech when they started was super expensive, and there's no way a sedan would have made it at that price point. So they aimed higher, and tried to show off what they could do, performance wise.
They're already working on the Sedan. It's coming. They just wanted to get people, and investors, excited first.
Considering that approximately 66% of electricity in the US is generated by fossil fuels, electric cars are not really much of an alternative. Just because you don't burn fossil fuels directly in the car doesn't mean they are not dependent on fossil fuels.
Maybe, but two things:
1). Power plants are much more efficient at converting fossil fuels to power than a bunch of individual engines.
2). The thing with electricity is that the sources can be changed out for cleaner ones without most of the consumers noticing. So while now that number is 66%, in the years to come it is expected to drop.
Had they failed, unemployment would have skyrocketed, and we'd be in the depths of depression instead of just recession. I know it's trendy and hip to be on the "Free Markets or Bust" bandwagon these days, but maybe you should actually look at what the domino effect of your desires would actually do.
No, fuck that. Profit should NOT be the only measure of something's worth.
Except we're commenting in a story ABOUT a new startup entering the market.
It's a fucking Ferrari-class car. Of course it's going to be expensive as fuck. But it got people talking about it, and it got investors excited.
No, that before they didn't get to keep the fee even if they accepted it. All revenue generated went to the Treasury fund, and they had to make due with whatever Congress gave them, which was usually a pittance.
Well, prior to this, the Patent office was given a pittance in funding, which meant that they couldn't really hire many people, let alone those with industry knowledge, to work and evaluate patents. Hopefully this will change that.
I would like to see how this could possible hold up to the congressional power of being able "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Somehow this round of patent reform is going still another step away from this constitutional mandate, as if it didn't even exist. Then again, I would be wary of the "limited Times" provision in any new law as well as that is where most "intellectual property reform" usually tends towards infinity on that issue.
You're going to have to clarify how it runs afoul of it.
No, because you didn't invent it. Prior art doesn't go away. Just the messy problem of determining who invented something first when two groups file similar inventions.